Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Woz has always felt slighted by Steve and in his shadow for all these years, so this was his chance to re-write history a bit or at least step into the spotlight (and make $200k). My guess is that Tim Cook won't be inviting the Woz to future Apple Christmas parties anytime soon...

So you spoke to Woz and he confided in you how he felt and feels today? And why he consulted on the movie? And all of his motives. That's really cool. You guys must be really tight!
 
  • Like
Reactions: SirCheese
It's pretty obvious that there's no adherence to truth when Rogen says that the Mac interface was stolen from Xerox; Jobs had negotiated with Xerox and got the rights to modify their GUI. This movie bends the truth to service dramatic scenes. That's probably why Cook isn't a fan of it. Well-acted dramatic scenes can make lies appear to be truth.

holy christ, well technically blah blah blah......

He is using the word stole to emphasize that Steve didn't create it, he just took "stole" it from someone else. Whether there was a deal or not is pointless, because he is not being LITERAL here, the scene is in private among friends, not a deposition hearing.

Its how normal people talk, we exaggerate and swap words for emphasis sometimes... it is a fairly common practice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YMark and samcraig
holy christ, well technically blah blah blah......

He is using the word stole to emphasize that Steve didn't create it, he just took "stole" it from someone else. Whether there was a deal or not is pointless, because he is not being LITERAL here, the scene is in private among friends, not a deposition hearing.

Its how normal people talk, we exaggerate and swap words for emphasis sometimes... it is a fairly common practice.
And you stole your house, your car, your laptop, your phone because you didn't create it.
 
Myself or no one here knows, but we can only take a guess...I'm thinking Apple paid rotten tomatoes a lot of money to put it at 91%...not a lot of movies get this kind of ratings.
Highly doubt that considering Apple didn't approve or give much assistance (if at all) in the production of this movie.

But it could still be good, because it is a MOVIE after all.
 
It's filth to create fictional characters and use the names of real people. And again, we get the "stole the GUI from Xerox" falsehood. So few people in the public know that Apple licensed Xerox ideas, and hired Xerox engineers.

Even fewer people know that the license often talked about is just an internet myth, usually combined with sub-myths such as Apple "giving" stock to Xerox.

Apple itself has never claimed such a license existed -- not even when Xerox sued Apple years later.

-- The history:

During 1978-80, Apple was looking for venture capital, and so was trying to attract angel investors by offering pre-IPO stock options. One of the takers was Xerox Development Corporation (XDC), a financial investment branch of Xerox. XDC had an idea that perhaps Apple computers could be sold in Xerox stores sometime in the future (which never happened).

Jobs used the XDC marketing connection to talk his way into a deep demo by PARC, whose managers were against the visit and one (Adele Goldberg) had even warned them that Apple would "steal" the GUI. However, an invitation to a demo is not a license.

Of course, the Xerox engineers that Apple later poached went on to further develop the GUI, but that has nothing to do with whether Apple originally had a license. (Or, heck, whether a license was even needed.)

TL;DR - Neither Xerox nor Apple has ever said that Apple had a license for using Xerox's GUI when they created the Lisa and Mac. Quite the contrary: "Xerox contends that the Lisa and Macintosh software stems from work originally done by Xerox scientists and that it was used by Apple without permission." - 1989 NY Times article when Xerox sued Apple
 
Last edited:
Oy vey, there's nothing superficial about it. If a movie is going to be made about a high-profile person's life not only should the movie have good substance but the actors should be of great likeness in acting abilities as well as looks, otherwise it's difficult for viewers familiar with the character to relate and identify with the character in question. By your logic Michael Jordan might as well play Steve. Oh but you might say Steve wasn't black? Well that's being "superficial" right?

I don’t think I’ve had much cause to see things your way before, but THIS!!
How the characeter comes across is just as important as the dialogue. Yes, dialogue is important but we are humans and most of what we take in when talking movies is based around sight, otherwise it may as well be a radio show.
Your point is brilliant. Soon we’ll hear people telling us that we could have a white guy as the lead in a new Roots remake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HenryDJP
And you stole your house, your car, your laptop, your phone because you didn't create it.

That's correct, I legally aquired those things, and when I have people over I tell them that I made them. Hopefully no one ever tries to say I'm "stealing" credit for something that I didn't do....

Again... Since you didn't grasp what I said... I don't think he literally stole it.... but In that scene, it was an exaggeration framed in a certain context to prove a point.
 
Last edited:
This post is in response to one slamming another forum member for saying Woz has felt overshadowed by Jobs.

I just watched a few interviews with Wozniac on You Tube . The great thing is that he's still here to tell us what he feels and what his perspective is on things that happened. Unfortunately he can say things now that Jobs will no longer be able to refute or clarify from his perspective or corroborate or apologize for. Fortunately much of what he says about Steve's business failures and ouster from Apple has been corroborated by John Sculley in a classy, dignified and credible manner.

In his interviews the things he does say make it very clear he is upset and frustrated that many people from Apple's early days have not gotten an accurate portrayal in movies or received sufficient press recognition for the parts they played in the success of early Apple products. He stops short of saying Steve Jobs stole all the credit for himself. What he does say is that others stole the credit from where it was rightfully due and gave it to Steve Jobs. That's one of his huge beefs with the Kutcher movie.

What I am happy to see Woz convey is that his own passion for technology and his creations still burns bright. It would be nice to see a movie about Woz and to see it made while he's still here to be his own advocate. I can see some interesting quirks and flaws apparent in his personality that would make for interesting dramatization. And goodness would it be funny to see his stint on Dancing with the Stars and short relationship with Kathy Griffin portrayed in the movie.

It's kind of ironic that the guy who was an asshat has one successful long marriage to his name and the one known as "the nice Steve" has a few failed ones. Maybe Woz isn't all that easy to get along with, either. At any rate, he deserves to be the focus now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmpSkillz
Watched it without sound. The mannerisms of Jobs is so totally off of anything I've ever seen in any of his interviews or anywhere else.

What throws me is that Fassbender looks more like John Sculley than Jobs. They didn't even make an effort on the hair and that could be just anybody. I'll have to see more than one clip to see if he otherwise captures Steve Jobs through his acting.

I feel the same way. It's as if the filmmakers told Fassbender not to act like Jobs at all on purpose.
 
Looks terrible.

We've seen Jobs in rehearsed presentations, casual interviews, documentaries showing him on the job, first hand accounts of his interactions with others.

This seems nothing like him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
I did not like that clip either, but not because it was boring. I did not like it because it seems improbable. the last line "tell me something else I don't already know," cannot be true. Steve, whatever anyone believes about him, always believed in his products. That he would knowingly and willfully debut a product he fully expected to fail seems way off.
First, it's a mosaic. Not a documentary. Second, we don't know if he didn't say this. Also, that's not the point. The point is to convey the message of whole story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SirCheese
I did not like that clip either, but not because it was boring. I did not like it because it seems improbable. the last line "tell me something else I don't already know," cannot be true. Steve, whatever anyone believes about him, always believed in his products. That he would knowingly and willfully debut a product he fully expected to fail seems way off.
If the Woz said it was good and conveyed the feeling...if he forgot he wasn't looking at Steve Jobs...sounds like the movie is spot on.
 
Can you imagine how good "Steve Jobs II" will be?
What I'd like to see is a spoof. Get Kutcher to reprise the role of Jobs, Rogen again to be Woz, and film Steve and Steve's Adventures in Silicon Valley. Have them get the idea for the first Apple computer while reprising that stoner scene from That 70's Show, only set it in Steve Jobs' garage. Kutcher should have that routine down pat by now. The whole of the movie can then be sort of a ripoff of Wayne's World, where instead of trying to get a cable access show off the ground in their house they get a computer business going. But then these evil corporate types try to ruin the brotherly camaraderie and fun of the business. And they ruin the Steve's fun and the rest of the movie is the boys coming back from that.

Come to think of it...that was the Ashton Kutcher movie already. Alrighty then...I'll just be going back to work now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Denmac1
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.